I think the best system is how ME3 multiplayer works...all the multiplayer DLC's are free and everything can be unlocked in-game by playing it long enough. However, you can also buy packs for MS points and because the system is a RNG, luck-based system it works well. You can spend $1000 or 1000 hours playing the game and probably achieve the same results. If you don't want to spend the money then just play the game and you will eventually get what you want.

im actually going to have to agree with you hear but only because the multiplayer dlc is free

That's business unfortunately in the video game industry its a cruel world. Shape up or get out. Valve get away with it because of steam end of story what Blezinski said is 100 per cent correct EA are a massive employer and business cutbacks, share drops and more dlc happens its not just going to go away. Your choice to fight back if you want to go and pirate, you do that. I mean it's wrong but that's business, I know I have said the same thing twice but just wait for a sale and get the game then with all the added packs we have to hope for a more competitive digital market. Games are very expensive to make and the right people needed to be working on them at that time to make a decent game. To be honest if EA makes awesome games I would be fine with DLC because it comes at the excuse for a great game, I would want more of it. Apple use this idea they make more add ons with their products, they're never seen as the badguy. If the DLC is only 'optional' I would be happy with that and was not some overpowered weapon I can excuse them. Sometime DLC is free and everyone rejoices it does cost money for DLC and they do want a return on it.

If he wanted to compare TF2 with any EA game, he should've compared it too Battlefield Heroes. But wait, i didn't hear many complaints towards microtransactions in BFH. Maybe you can figure why, eh Cliffy?

MrCalavera:If he wanted to compare TF2 with any EA game, he should've compared it too Battlefield Heroes. But wait, i didn't hear many complaints towards microtransactions in BFH. Maybe you can figure why, eh Cliffy?

So what's the difference between two short SP games and multiplayer, and one long SP game and multiplayer? Not very much.

Since there's not very much difference between the two, would you mind telling me when Dead Space 3 plans to go Free-To-Play?

This point is already diffused by the fact that the Orange Box was a retail game for 4 years. And let's be frank, in 4 years Dead Space 3 will be 5-10 dollars sitting on a used shelf. The DS3 vs. TF2 argument has little merit. You're comparing a game that has been out for years versus a game that just came out. If you compare both games at launch, both are $60 games with a lot of micro transactions.

If you really want to be frank with it, TF2's crate drops add an incentive to spend money on keys to open them. Deas Space 3's microtransactions just make the game easier. I'd say that TF2 goes for your money more aggressively, as it gives you items you have to pay to unlock. Either way, both games are guilty trying to reach into your wallet. The fact that TF2 is F2P now doesn't win the argument for Valve here.

AzrealMaximillion:This point is already diffused by the fact that the Orange Box was a retail game for 4 years. And let's be frank, in 4 years Dead Space 3 will be 5-10 dollars sitting on a used shelf. The DS3 vs. TF2 argument has little merit. You're comparing a game that has been out for years versus a game that just came out. If you compare both games at launch, both are $60 games with a lot of micro transactions.

If you really want to be frank with it, TF2's crate drops add an incentive to spend money on keys to open them. Deas Space 3's microtransactions just make the game easier. I'd say that TF2 goes for your money more aggressively, as it gives you items you have to pay to unlock. Either way, both games are guilty trying to reach into your wallet. The fact that TF2 is F2P now doesn't win the argument for Valve here.

It's not as simple as you're making it sound.

TF2;

Didn't include microtransactions until 3 years after release, and one year before they went F2P.Was a complete game at release, with no parts sliced off to make Day One DLCHas had plenty of free DLC, including a fairly long list of game modes.Was sold for $60 as part of The Orange Box, and not on its own. Evenly divided, you paid $12 for TF2.

Dead Space 3;

Microtransactions from day one.Suits/Equipment/Features/Audio sliced off of the game to make eleven pieces of Day One DLC.Will have DLC, but will charge the standard (high) price for it.Was sold for $60 on it's own, meaning it cost the full $60.

You make it sound like TF2 had MTs from day one, and it didn't. You make it sound like it cost as much to buy, and it didn't.

If you really want to be frank with it, TF2's crate drops add an incentive to spend money on keys to open them. Deas Space 3's microtransactions just make the game easier. I'd say that TF2 goes for your money more aggressively, as it gives you items you have to pay to unlock.

It gives you both crate drops and weapon drops, and the crate drops do not add to your weekly weapon-drop cap. You get free items, if you want more, you can pay for more.

Also note that the reason Valve has not released any updates for the 360 version of the game is because Microsoft says they must charge people for them and Valve refuses to do so.

Didn't include microtransactions until 3 years after release, and one year before they went F2P.

Lol no. new items started coming for TF2 in 2008. The game was released in 2007. The Gold Rush Update my friend.

Was a complete game at release, with no parts sliced off to make Day One DLC

A fair point, but EA is hardly the lone company doing this.

Has had plenty of free DLC, including a fairly long list of game modes.

With each game mode came a bunch of new items that dropped randomly in crates. Crates that you have to pay to unlock.

Was sold for $60 as part of The Orange Box, and not on its own. Evenly divided, you paid $12 for TF2.

The major complaint seems to be that retail games shouldn't be having microtransactions. TF2 was in that category for the majority of its release. Coupled with the fact that the Orange Box was a full priced game. It wasn't prices so that each game included in the Orange Box was $12 evenly.

Dead Space 3;

Microtransactions from day one.

A fair point. But the Dead Space series has always suffered from this so its not really a surprise.

Suits/Equipment/Features/Audio sliced off of the game to make eleven pieces of Day One DLC.

A good point, but when you look at how many items TF2 adds, as well as the fact that they charge you to unlock the items you randomly receive, its hard to argue that TF2 never made an aggressive grab for your wallet. And again, this was while you had to pay for TF2.

Will have DLC, but will charge the standard (high) price for it.

You must not have heard of TF2's Mann vs. Machine mode(horde mode). Its a newer TF2 mode that has 2 server types. Unofficial and Official. Unofficial servers will not get you rewards. But if you buy tickets or vouchers, you automatically get a rare item for completing the mission. You can't play the official servers without paying for a ticket. Its a mode made in another attempt to have you spending money on virtual items. While not DLC, let's face it, people are probably going to spend the same amount as a pack of DLC on things like this. My TF2 inventory alone has gotten more money's worth thrown into it then what Dead Space 3 will eventually wind up costing at the end. And I paid for TF2.

Was sold for $60 on it's own, meaning it cost the full $60.

As are a lot of games. I'm not saying that what EA is doing is kosher, but the majority of people on this thread who are using TF2 for their argument are ignoring a lot of TF2's retail history of being a retail game that has a massive amount of microtransactions.

You make it sound like TF2 had MTs from day one, and it didn't. You make it sound like it cost as much to buy, and it didn't.

It had MTs in the following year, it costs people who bought it early enough the same amount as Dead Space 3, and it has earned more money on the keys alone than EA ever will off of Dead Space's MTs. Call it what you want, but CliffyB is right on this one. Gaming is a business and both TF2 and DS3 have made one metric fuckton of an effort trying to get people's money after having you buy the game.

And while TF2 is F2P, if you don't spend a dime in TF2 these days, your gameplay experience is severely kneecapped by the fact that crate drops are drastically reduced for players who haven't bought anything. Free players don't get full on item drops, can't trade, and will have less fun using the base weapons than everyone else who is armed to the teeth in items. People like to say that the items in TF2 have no effect on the gameplay due to drawbacks, and that's a bold faced lie. Especially when having all of the items in a particular set gives you decent bonuses. Items do make a difference in TF2 and items cost money. Items for all 6 classes to be fun to play will wind up costing you more than anyone is willing to spend on the nigh meaningless MTs of Dead Space. Dead Space's MTs make the single player game easier to play.

Its just not fair to call CliffyB the asshole who pointed out that TF2 in its own way is just as guilty, if not more, than EA for its use of MTs. Its even more unfair to ignore the fact that TF2 spent 3 of its 4 first years after release with MTs. This is just another EA hate bandwagon that ignore that a large amount of game companies have been in the business of MTs in their retail games for a long while now.

It gives you both crate drops and weapon drops, and the crate drops do not add to your weekly weapon-drop cap. You get free items, if you want more, you can pay for more.

Only after you pay. You get next to nothing in terms of drops if you don't give Valve a cent towards TF2. You don't even get weapon drops. Just crates you can't open until you pay. And even, the majority of what you get is crates, so have HAVE to pay up. Its no as fun being the blank slate TF2 player when people are running around in full sets that give them bonuses.

Also note that the reason Valve has not released any updates for the 360 version of the game is because Microsoft says they must charge people for them and Valve refuses to do so.

Yeah...no one brought up the 360 version at all.. I don't even think that people give the 360 version a look these days. There's no point.

Akalabeth:Ask me again in four years. (the amount of time it took TF2 to go F2P)But you'll probably get a 30-$40 Deadspace trilogy in 2.

But that's not free.

Since you made the claim that they are very similar, then surely you can tell me when EA will release DS3 entirely for free.

Yes and if I had asked you in 2010 when Team Fortress 2 was going to be free what would have been your answer? The answer is you wouldn't have an answer. So I appreciate the fact you're trying to make a point by asking an unanswerable question, but you're not.

Also the fact that TF2 became free to play didn't change the fact that millions of people bought it.

So, the guy who didn't make a PC version of Gears of War 2 & 3 is trying to get PC gamers to see that Valve is worse than EA? Seems legit.

Valve never tried to sell me an unfinished product and then charged me for the rest of it in DLC packs, and has never tried to sell me extra guns for their games. Also Steam keeps having 75%+ sales while Origin occasionally has US-only coupons.

Good games don't have to cost that much to make - Legend of Grimrock is far more fun, challenging, innovative and better-looking than any Call of Duty game and it didn't even remotely come close to its budget. If your game can sell millions of copies and still be considered a failure, you have only yourself to blame.

Of course valve can do wrong half life 2 episode 3 is a example of what they do wrong but compared to ea and most of the big publishers there far Nicer.

Team fortress 2 was 4 year old when it went free to play that and there was a lot of free content since then so that's not exactly a argument against valve.

Yeah voting with your wallets might seem like a nice idea but boycotting really isn't going to do more than kill off your favorite franchise while ea continues to make money with it sports games and assimilate more studios.

It'd be great if it was that simple, but it's not. Do you think authors predict the number of pages their books will be before they write them, or do you think they write them and find out how many pages it is afterwards? When creating art, you can't just choose a stopping point, because then you'd have to deliberately skip over inspiration when it came to you. When they were writing Mass Effect 3, if they had a really good idea that they'd not had when the deadlines were set, should that idea just be cast to the wind just so the truly arbitrary deadline can remain on one day, instead of moving back a week to an equally good day?

I've worked on a fair bit of art myself. Inspiration comes and goes and no amount of trying will ever bring it to you otherwise. Prioritize deadlines and you grossly limit art. Someone has one idea, and you make it, ignoring all of the inspiration along the way which would have improved upon it and accepting all the flaws you discover, without fixing them. Sounds great, right? Much more important that you release it in March instead of April, but make it totally uninspired, yeah?

It's called being professional. Define your scope, know how long things are going to take and hit your deadlines. And if you get inspired know what you can accomplish in the set amount of time, and what you cannot.

I mean what you're effectively saying is that EA has a set a deadline, and artists working are either not inspired often enough (ie not working hard) or they get inspired and add more things to make it better despite knowing that they have a deadline. And I'm supposed to blame EA for that why exactly?

The "It's art, they're artists. Artists need inspiration they can't work like the rest of us" is a cop out. Hit your deadline, work hard all the time, and have a realistic expectation of how long things will take.

As for switching companies, I'm happy for you that your local business seems to be so good that you can fall from one job into another without trying. But please don't try to pretend the whole world is like that. The video game industry is hard to get into, because its a dream job for a lot of people. That means there are a lot of unemployed game designers. That means you join a long line when you lose a job.

Yes that's lovely speculation but I suspect it's not backed up by any actual experience is it? So to suggest that my experience in a related field is not the norm is not necessarily disputed by evidence at all. I suspect like my industry, the people who suffer most when people are laid off are not the experienced people, but the students. Because suddenly they're competing with people who have experience and unless a company wants to fill their ranks with cheap inexperienced workers they'll take the laid-off employees instead.

Yes, that's another thing. When people are laid off from a company, they're entitled to Government benefits like Employment Insurance, or at least they are in Canada don't know about the US.

I'd buy that if you weren't trying to deflect absolutely 100% of the blame away from EA. That's not level-headedness, that's fanboyism.

You told me I wasn't showing a balanced perspective, so I showed you some of the things EA does right and some of the things Valve does wrong... I even divided the blame for ME3's ending equally between BioWare and EA.

But as far as you're concerned, EA's spotless and Valve's awful. Exactly the same black-and-white nonsense I thought you were railing against?

I'm not deflecting blame from EA, I'm saying blame EA where their blame is due. People blaming EA for creative differences is nonsensical when EA is a publisher. Whereas blaming EA for giving a game a comparatively low budget (ie Dragon Age 2) makes more sense.

Akalabeth:I mean Gabe Newell is valued at 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. DO you get that? 1.5 BILLION. What the fuck's he doing with that money? HD Counterstrike. HD Dota2? More hats for TF2? It's pathetic. 1.5 Billion by the way, is more than Zenimax (Bethesda)

So yeah, actually I'll go back on what I just said and say that yes, Valve is a failure. And until they quit doing sequels to third party mod updates, I'll continue to hold that point of view.

I've already told you that they're making the Steam Box, but you selectively ignored that, apparently. So I'll tell you again; They're making the Steam Box. Maybe making a console is taking a lot of their attention?

And how does that affect the alleged stagnation of video games? That's the criteria by which we're judging Valve as a success or failure. Not their obvious shift to a storefront.Previously there was a question whether EA should get credit for publishing an innovative game. So now does Steam get credit for selling an innovative game? So if EA publishes Mirror's Edge 2, and it's awesome, does Best Buy, Future Shop, Game Stop all get credit for selling it just as Steam gets credit for selling FTL or Binding of Isaac?

I think there's a difference between financing a game with money (ie EA). And allowing some indie game the privilege of being on your store so you can take your 33% cut.

As for Greenlight. Sure it's exposure for indie games, but it's also Steam discarding the responsibility (and paid work) of researching the good games themselves and instead just making it a popularity contest.

Plus, what Gabe Newell is also doing, is offering more games for much, much cheaper than anyone else. And maybe developing HL3? When that comes out, it's sure to set the bar once again. If I asked you to wake me up when EA made a revolutionary new console, offered massive sales across hundreds of products like Steam, or defined a new generation of games, I'd be sleeping eternally.

I'm sorry but if Valve is developing HL3 I'll be very surprised. They went from making full SP games. To episodic SP games. To multiplayer only games, most of which aren't even based on their own IP. The only exception to the MP-only being portal2. And now they're becoming a console manufacturer, possibly copying the Ouya. If you don't see the obvious shift away from games like Half Life 3 then you need to look a little harder.

Akalabeth:Steam Greenlight? So you're giving them credit, for other people's games? Riiiiight. If FTL is a great game, it's because of the people who made FTL, not because FTL is put on steam.

Great strawman. Now onto what I was actually saying;

Steam Greenlight is great because it gives indie games a chance to be advertised on Steam's front page. Exposure can make or break a game.

XBLA is good for Indie games, but Greenlight is better. Firstly, it's much easier and cheaper to make indie games for PC (which is why they out number XBLA games hundreds-to-one) and secondly, because XBLA requires Microsoft to find and approve those games, whereas Greenlight works on votes by users, eliminating Valve's potential blind spots from the equation.

Yes and for that you can give them credit for promoting the game, but you cannot give them credit for breaking up the stagnation of the industry. That credit is due to the people actually, making games. The people still being creative.

Akalabeth:What law? You can't copyright game mechanics. And if your new game is simply portal under a different name then you shouldn't be making it in the first place.

I don't even know why you're asking that question, when you already know the answer, evidenced by your own words a sentence later.

You can copyright enough of a game so that it'd be breaking the law, if you were making Portal, got the sack, got a new job and made Portal again.

So, like I already said, if you're working on your magnus opus, you simply could not afford to have it taken from you. Imagine your favourite art form, your favourite artist... say perhaps a musician... suddenly being legally unable to play whatever their main, signature instrument is. It's not as simple as just shrugging and saying "Welp, onto the next instrument." like you seem to think it is. So if that musician, through no fault of their own, became the apparently disposable slave of EA (through whatever witchcraft you might like to imagine, play along) and EA could take their instrument away if the musician didn't do as they say... you damn well better believe that most, even those with this fabled "backbone" you talk about, would do as EA say. At least for a little while.

Your analogy is flawed because being fired doesn't prevent a programmer from programming.

A musician therefore would still be able to play their instrument (do what they were doing before), they could still play the same genre of music (create the same type of game), the only thing they couldn't do is play the same song that EA or the publisher now has the rights to. But the thing is, creating games isn't like playing music, you don't play the same song over and over again. At worst you remix the same song, draw heavily from the original and change it up a bit, balance the levels, etcetera like making sequels. Which is what you often rail against EA for doing.

But no you create new songs. So if you write a song, lose the rights, just go make a new song in the same style (same mechanics) but with a different tune (new IP).

Unless of course when you wrote the song you had some epic idea for a whole album that hinged on the inclusion of that song and now you cannot complete the album. But if you're planning that before you've even got a hit (ie planning a trilogy on a new IP before you even sell the first game) then your approach is flawed and you need to be realistic.

Wow. Just got through the whole history of this debate, and I can't believe you were able to string people along into talking to you for that long. You had a few valid points, but most of what you said was a repeat of previous invalid arguments or a complete sidestep of the question being asked in the first place.

I know you won't, but you should really be quite embarrassed by what you did in this thread.

Rachmaninov: You also made good points. Sorry you had to deal with someone so completely oblivious.

Wow. Just got through the whole history of this debate, and I can't believe you were able to string people along into talking to you for that long. You had a few valid points, but most of what you said was a repeat of previous invalid arguments or a complete sidestep of the question being asked in the first place.

I know you won't, but you should really be quite embarrassed by what you did in this thread.

Rachmaninov: You also made good points. Sorry you had to deal with someone so completely oblivious.

Hey look, it's someone who's trying to refute my discussion without actually providing specifics, examples or anything of value. And if I'm repeating the same things, it's because the people on the other side of the discussion "don't get it".

But beyond that, thanks for your meaningless post that contributed nothing. Have a nice day.

True, but this isn't exactly EA's only crime. Watch the Jimquisition episode " Why Do People Hate EA?" if you don't know what I mean.

AzrealMaximillion:With each game mode came a bunch of new items that dropped randomly in crates. Crates that you have to pay to unlock.

Anything you get in crates you get from random drops, too. Admittedly, you need a "Premium" account in order to get those random drops, but all that means is that you bought the game, or made any single Mann Co purchase ($3?).

I can see how Dead Space 3's "pay for convenient access to those things you want, but would have to grind for otherwise" microtransaction system is very, very similar to the crate system though, I'll give you that.

A fair point. But the Dead Space series has always suffered from this so its not really a surprise.

I'm pretty sure this is the first Dead Space game to include MTs. DS2 had buyable suits, but not this "lets make a resource system specifically for the purpose of shoe-horning in microtransactions" nonsense that DS3 has.

A good point, but when you look at how many items TF2 adds, as well as the fact that they charge you to unlock the items you randomly receive, its hard to argue that TF2 never made an aggressive grab for your wallet. And again, this was while you had to pay for TF2.

The list of items TF2 added is actually pretty damn long. And like I mentioned above, what they offer you with MTs is convenience (since you can get everything you get from chests by way of random, free drops) the same as Dead Space 3. It's a little shady by both parties, I agree, but like I've said in my other posts, this is EA's most minor transgression. So Valve is equally guilty of this minor transgression, just not of the much greater evils EA has performed over the years.

You must not have heard of TF2's Mann vs. Machine mode(horde mode). Its a newer TF2 mode that has 2 server types. Unofficial and Official. Unofficial servers will not get you rewards. But if you buy tickets or vouchers, you automatically get a rare item for completing the mission. You can't play the official servers without paying for a ticket. Its a mode made in another attempt to have you spending money on virtual items. While not DLC, let's face it, people are probably going to spend the same amount as a pack of DLC on things like this. My TF2 inventory alone has gotten more money's worth thrown into it then what Dead Space 3 will eventually wind up costing at the end. And I paid for TF2.

If you paid for TF2, you never had to throw any more money at it. You did so only for convenience.

Mann vs Machine wasn't introduced until 2012, with this update. That's a year after it went F2P. And you can play the game mode for free. MvM is no different to many different ideas used in the F2P model. But make no mistake TF2 was F2P before Mann vs Machine. Not to mention, this was part of a long list of free updates to the game.

AzrealMaximillion:As are a lot of games. I'm not saying that what EA is doing is kosher, but the majority of people on this thread who are using TF2 for their argument are ignoring a lot of TF2's retail history of being a retail game that has a massive amount of microtransactions.

TF2 was a retail game which also had MTs, yes. But like I've said, not until 3 years had passed beyond release. Let's face it, EA forget their games exist before 3 years has passed, let alone continuing to adapt and evolve them. Everyone who wanted to play TF2 without MTs had [/b]three whole years to do so[/b] which is saying a lot in the Call of Duty generation, where the most popular multiplayer games last about a year.

AzrealMaximillion:Gaming is a business and both TF2 and DS3 have made one metric fuckton of an effort trying to get people's money after having you buy the game.

One game was shipped at full price, with microtransactions, Day One DLC, and full-price DLC down the line.

The other was shipped as part of a 5-for-1 deal of games, wouldn't get microtransactions for three years, and released every piece of DLC for free with big, semi-regular updates continuing for at least 5 years after the game came out, and all for no extra charge.

Maybe they both made a metric fuckton, but only one of them is daylight robbery.

And while TF2 is F2P, if you don't spend a dime in TF2 these days, your gameplay experience is severely kneecapped by the fact that crate drops are drastically reduced for players who haven't bought anything. Free players don't get full on item drops, can't trade, and will have less fun using the base weapons than everyone else who is armed to the teeth in items. People like to say that the items in TF2 have no effect on the gameplay due to drawbacks, and that's a bold faced lie. Especially when having all of the items in a particular set gives you decent bonuses. Items do make a difference in TF2 and items cost money. Items for all 6 classes to be fun to play will wind up costing you more than anyone is willing to spend on the nigh meaningless MTs of Dead Space. Dead Space's MTs make the single player game easier to play.

Having bought the game when it was retail, or having made one purchase ($3?) from the Mann Co store, you remove all of these restrictions, and from then on, the MTs are a matter of convenience. Just like Dead Space 3's MTs.

Its just not fair to call CliffyB the asshole who pointed out that TF2 in its own way is just as guilty, if not more, than EA for its use of MTs. Its even more unfair to ignore the fact that TF2 spent 3 of its 4 first years after release with MTs. This is just another EA hate bandwagon that ignore that a large amount of game companies have been in the business of MTs in their retail games for a long while now.

Except that statement is based on a lie. TF2 spend one of its first four years with MTs and then it became free.

The "EA hate bandwagon" is about more than MTs. It's about the shittiest business practices in the whole industry. It's about crushing beloved development studios and about trying every penny-pinching technique they can find. MTs are just the most recent penny-pinching technique EA has lovingly clutched to its bosom.

Maybe, you should do a little more research before assuming something is unfounded. Scumbag EA earned their "Scumbag" title.

Demonstrating how customization that is PAID for in TF2, a game that was sold in a full priced box, is free content in other multiplayer games?

I have no idea what you guys were arguing over, I didn't take the time to read it, but I do have something to say about this.

Customization doesn't really matter. Every single part of the game functions the same way with or without hats/rings/whatever. You don't pay to access parts of the game, you pay so that you can be a special snowflake and stand out from everyone else. For more on this type of thing, see my earlier post on League of Legends.

Your opinion on the importance of customization doesn't change the fact that both Valve and EA are guilty of introducing micro transactions into a game that was sold at full price.

You are correct, they did. But what I was saying is micro transactions are not a bad thing, as long as they don't change gameplay.

TK421: I have no idea what you guys were arguing over, I didn't take the time to read it, but I do have something to say about this.

Customization doesn't really matter. Every single part of the game functions the same way with or without hats/rings/whatever. You don't pay to access parts of the game, you pay so that you can be a special snowflake and stand out from everyone else. For more on this type of thing, see my earlier post on League of Legends.

Your opinion on the importance of customization doesn't change the fact that both Valve and EA are guilty of introducing micro transactions into a game that was sold at full price.

You are correct, they did. But what I was saying is micro transactions are not a bad thing, as long as they don't change gameplay.

Yes I don't mind micro transactions either as long as they're optional (EDIT - wrote popular first time, dunno why). If I can ignore it like I can ignore DLC and everything else and still enjoy the game that's fine by me.

It really felt like he sees video game developers as nearly homeless people living on the street, needing to steal bread to feed their family and microtransactions are the only way little Jimmy is going to get some bread in his poor little tummy.

I think the TF2 microtransactions are dumb but at least the game is free, as for Valve doing no wrong in some peoples eyes? They earned that loyalty, you twat. Just as EA has earned the disgust.

As for not buying games EA makes to prove a point? Really? I'm not simply going to stop buying games that are good because I hate the publisher, that is not a solution and Cliff knows it or he has the intelligence of a third grader and honestly believes this is a clever argument, actually not sure which at this point.

As for gamers liking microtransactions? You really think EA is going to publish data that says we don't like them? Anyone can point at a bunch of math figures and say "You see! look at all dat sweet, sweet monies. Gamers luv our horseshit because of $$$!!!"

I feel a little betrayed, honestly. I like Cliff but recently he seems to do absolutely nothing but shoot his mouth off at random intervals. At least when he did that before, you knew he'd also be working on some sweet games.

AzrealMaximillion:Gaming is a business and both TF2 and DS3 have made one metric fuckton of an effort trying to get people's money after having you buy the game.

One game was shipped at full price, with microtransactions, Day One DLC, and full-price DLC down the line.

The other was shipped as part of a 5-for-1 deal of games, wouldn't get microtransactions for three years, and released every piece of DLC for free with big, semi-regular updates continuing for at least 5 years after the game came out, and all for no extra charge.

Maybe they both made a metric fuckton, but only one of them is daylight robbery.

So are all full-priced games "daylight robbery"? Because if the DLC and MTs are optional for DS3 then it's no different than every other game out there at face value.

I mean what you're effectively saying is that EA has a set a deadline, and artists working are either not inspired often enough (ie not working hard) or they get inspired and add more things to make it better despite knowing that they have a deadline. And I'm supposed to blame EA for that why exactly?

Now I know for sure I'm not talking to an artist. Inspiration has absolutely nothing to do with working hard.

Having written stories, made a few games, and composed music, I'm intimately familiar with the process of inspiration. Inspiration is me sitting here with by bass, plinking around, trying stuff out, waiting until a good idea comes to me. You can't make it come to you, you just have to wait.

Let me give you this example; Why don't you go invent something new and valuable? Surely if you try hard enough, something new will just materialize before you, right? Can you give me a deadline for when you will have invented something new?

Nope. Of course you can't. Which is why "inventors" wind up as paupers who spend altogether too much time in their basement/shed, trying to force good ideas.

Yes that's lovely speculation but I suspect it's not backed up by any actual experience is it?

Actually, it is. I've not got international experience, so maybe it's different elsewhere (although, if you were me, you'd be assuming it's the same across the world, even in other fields, like you have been this whole time) but I have a few friends who game design students, and through them have got to meet experienced, unemployed game designers.

People blaming EA for creative differences is nonsensical when EA is a publisher. Whereas blaming EA for giving a game a comparatively low budget (ie Dragon Age 2) makes more sense.

Publishers do get a say in the creative side. That's good cause to assume everything "out of character" for the game could well be publisher interference (for example, ME3's ending; a rushed, sudden, nonsensical plot twist at the end of a masterfully woven story? Sounds pretty out of character to me).

The Steam Box isn't to fix the stagnation of video games, but it will crack open the console market, to bring Steam (along with Greenlight) to a wider range of people, and hopefully put an end to the deliberately divisive tactics used by Microsoft and Sony (proprietary everything).

Greenlight is helping to fix that stagnation of video games. Because indie games bring fresh ideas and it's easy for those creators to get their great ideas out to more people. Which brings me back to dashing this strawman you've brought up again:

So now does Steam get credit for selling an innovative game? So if EA publishes Mirror's Edge 2, and it's awesome, does Best Buy, Future Shop, Game Stop all get credit for selling it just as Steam gets credit for selling FTL or Binding of Isaac?

I've already told you that this isn't what I meant, why must you insist on repeating it?

FTL = great gameFTL + Steam = great game given the spotlight

FTL's idea doesn't earn Steam credit. Steam earns credit for showing FTL to lots of people. That doesn't make Steam responsible for FTL's great idea, that makes Steam responsible for a large part of FTL's popularity.

I'm sorry but if Valve is developing HL3 I'll be very surprised. They went from making full SP games. To episodic SP games. To multiplayer only games, most of which aren't even based on their own IP. The only exception to the MP-only being portal2. And now they're becoming a console manufacturer, possibly copying the Ouya. If you don't see the obvious shift away from games like Half Life 3 then you need to look a little harder.

No looking is required. You've got this incorrect idea that MP-only games are a new thing for Valve. It's not. Valve were the beginning of the Call of Duty era, with Counter Strike. And before you repeat what you've already said; Yes, I know Counter Strike wasn't made by them. Yes, I know it was a mod. Yes, I know they only bought the idea. But my point is, Valve have been in the MP-only arena for a long, long time and nothing has changed. And that's not even including Team Fortress, which invented class-based shooters.

No obvious shift has occurred. Valve makes MP-only games most of the time, and a masterpiece singleplayer game every now and then.

Valve's new engines have always come with a new half-life game. And there's no reason to think they'd stop now. They'll make HL3, on a new engine, and they'll release a handful of MP-only games on that engine afterwards.

Yes and for that you can give them credit for promoting the game, but you cannot give them credit for breaking up the stagnation of the industry. That credit is due to the people actually, making games. The people still being creative.

Part of that credit is due to the people making games. But all their creativity would be for naught if someone didn't give them a place where those games could be viewed just as easily as AAA games. People like EA have helped create a system where independent developers cannot complete. They spend massive amounts of money on their games, giving them loud advertising and building hype (all good things, besides perhaps the bloated spending) which completely drowns out other games, who don't have a publisher and don't have the funds to advertise.

XBLA and Greenlight advertise these games, and Greenlight gives the opportunity to any game so long as it's popular enough (which doesn't actually mean that popular).

But no you create new songs. So if you write a song, lose the rights, just go make a new song in the same style (same mechanics) but with a different tune (new IP).

Since most musicians write lots of songs (a lot more than a developer would ever create games (except maybe EA with FIFA, eh?) I guess my music analogy wasn't so good.

Perhaps I'll use the analogy of books instead, since video games also involves writing a story. Go back to 1995, take the Harry Potter I.P. away from J.K. Rowling.

Sure, she probably would've written other books, but Harry Potter was her magnus opus, her great work. Taking that away from her would've meant that the successful career she had now, likely never would have happened. She couldn't have exactly gone and written "Parry Hotter and the Logician's Rock" without the new owner of her IP taking her to court.

Your misunderstanding comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of art. Truly great ideas aren't just the product of thinking really hard, despite what you seem to think.

AzrealMaximillion:Gaming is a business and both TF2 and DS3 have made one metric fuckton of an effort trying to get people's money after having you buy the game.

One game was shipped at full price, with microtransactions, Day One DLC, and full-price DLC down the line.

The other was shipped as part of a 5-for-1 deal of games, wouldn't get microtransactions for three years, and released every piece of DLC for free with big, semi-regular updates continuing for at least 5 years after the game came out, and all for no extra charge.

Maybe they both made a metric fuckton, but only one of them is daylight robbery.

So are all full-priced games "daylight robbery"? *snip*

No. All full-priced games that ship with microtransactions, Day One DLC plus full-price DLC down the line are daylight robbery. Which is what I said already.

Akalabeth:Because if the DLC and MTs are optional for DS3 then it's no different than every other game out there at face value.

Except that the game comes to you deliberately unfinished, so they've got more things to sell you. Seriously, what is it you're not getting?

Developers: "Hey, we've got a great game with Dead Space 3. We've had some really good ideas how to further the story."EA: "Good, now lock some pieces so we can sell them as Day One DLC, shoe-horn in a resource system so we can offer microtransactions and cut out this extra stuff in Chapter X, we'll use that idea for some $25 DLC."

Read that. Read it and try to pretend it's not true.

Dead Space 3 didn't need a resource system, and it didn't improve the game in the least, but it gave EA an excuse to include MTs. And it had eleven pieces of content on the disk and locked until you paid extra.

EA take every bad, money-grubbing idea anyone else has come up with, and adopt them full-on. They try to cram as many money-making schemes into their game as possible on launch.

I mean what you're effectively saying is that EA has a set a deadline, and artists working are either not inspired often enough (ie not working hard) or they get inspired and add more things to make it better despite knowing that they have a deadline. And I'm supposed to blame EA for that why exactly?

Now I know for sure I'm not talking to an artist. Inspiration has absolutely nothing to do with working hard.

Having written stories, made a few games, and composed music, I'm intimately familiar with the process of inspiration. Inspiration is me sitting here with by bass, plinking around, trying stuff out, waiting until a good idea comes to me. You can't make it come to you, you just have to wait.

Let me give you this example; Why don't you go invent something new and valuable? Surely if you try hard enough, something new will just materialize before you, right? Can you give me a deadline for when you will have invented something new?

Nope. Of course you can't. Which is why "inventors" wind up as paupers who spend altogether too much time in their basement/shed, trying to force good ideas.

You know shit all actually.I've spent 4 months of my life, working 12-16 hours a day at school or more making a 3-4 minutes, HAND DRAWN classically-animated film, which from boards, to design, to animation and compositing was done largely by myself with some last minute help by my classmates.

So believe me, I KNOW about setting realistic expectations because my original ambitions were too big. I KNOW about the importance of deadlines and the consequences of falling behind.

So you can go ahead and plink on your bass and doodle in your sketchbook like every other person in the planet, for someone like myself, who is WORKING PROFESSIONAL 8-10 hours a day, for 5-6 years in an artistic trade I think I know a little more than you.

And the idea of "It's done when it's done" or "the deadline doesn't matter" is a philosophy of people who are indecisive and unprofessional. This is a business, so ACT business-like.

Rachmaninov:Actually, it is. I've not got international experience, so maybe it's different elsewhere (although, if you were me, you'd be assuming it's the same across the world, even in other fields, like you have been this whole time) but I have a few friends who game design students, and through them have got to meet experienced, unemployed game designers.

It's not a question of nationality it's a question of the city you're in and how willing the person is to relocate. If your city has no work and you don't want to move, you're screwed, OR, you can set out on your own.

People blaming EA for creative differences is nonsensical when EA is a publisher. Whereas blaming EA for giving a game a comparatively low budget (ie Dragon Age 2) makes more sense.

Publishers do get a say in the creative side. That's good cause to assume everything "out of character" for the game could well be publisher interference (for example, ME3's ending; a rushed, sudden, nonsensical plot twist at the end of a masterfully woven story? Sounds pretty out of character to me).

Yeah because every game ever has a great ending right? Oh wait, no a lot of them have weak third arcs.

See that's the thing with people like you, and yes I'm generalizing. But if a game that EA publishes is great, it's not because of EA, they're just the publisher. They didn't develop those games right. But if there's any problem with a game, it must be EA's fault. The ending sucks! It's EA's fault because of you know, deadlines and stuff, yeah that's a good rational right? NOT.

If the ending sucks, maybe Bioware should not have waited until the end to work on it.

The Steam Box isn't to fix the stagnation of video games, but it will crack open the console market, to bring Steam (along with Greenlight) to a wider range of people, and hopefully put an end to the deliberately divisive tactics used by Microsoft and Sony (proprietary everything).

Hahaha. Right.So . . a storefront that REQUIRES you use it in order to play the games it sells is going to get rid of deliberately divisive tactics? Give me a break man.

So now does Steam get credit for selling an innovative game? So if EA publishes Mirror's Edge 2, and it's awesome, does Best Buy, Future Shop, Game Stop all get credit for selling it just as Steam gets credit for selling FTL or Binding of Isaac?

I've already told you that this isn't what I meant, why must you insist on repeating it?

FTL = great gameFTL + Steam = great game given the spotlight

Wrong.Kickstarter and word of mouth gave FTL a spotlight. Not Steam Greenlight.

And yes that's besides the point but again, I don't credit a store for selling things. A store selling stuff is just people looking to make money from other people's work. I credit people for creating things.

I think there's a difference between financing a game with money (ie EA). And allowing some indie game the privilege of being on your store so you can take your 33% cut.

They both achieve the same effect. Except EA has no interest in indie games, so does next to nothing to support them.

Yes except in one case EA is risking their capital to develop a product. In the other case Valve is riding on the coat tail's of someone else's hard work. And while doing so by the way Valve has shown a preference for the Source engine, hosting games which are . . alleged terrible while at the same time other great indie games weren't allowed on Steam.

I'm sorry but if Valve is developing HL3 I'll be very surprised. They went from making full SP games. To episodic SP games. To multiplayer only games, most of which aren't even based on their own IP. The only exception to the MP-only being portal2. And now they're becoming a console manufacturer, possibly copying the Ouya. If you don't see the obvious shift away from games like Half Life 3 then you need to look a little harder.

No looking is required. You've got this incorrect idea that MP-only games are a new thing for Valve. It's not. Valve were the beginning of the Call of Duty era, with Counter Strike. And before you repeat what you've already said; Yes, I know Counter Strike wasn't made by them. Yes, I know it was a mod. Yes, I know they only bought the idea. But my point is, Valve have been in the MP-only arena for a long, long time and nothing has changed. And that's not even including Team Fortress, which invented class-based shooters.

Yes and for that you can give them credit for promoting the game, but you cannot give them credit for breaking up the stagnation of the industry. That credit is due to the people actually, making games. The people still being creative.

Part of that credit is due to the people making games. But all their creativity would be for naught if someone didn't give them a place where those games could be viewed just as easily as AAA games. People like EA have helped create a system where independent developers cannot complete. They spend massive amounts of money on their games, giving them loud advertising and building hype (all good things, besides perhaps the bloated spending) which completely drowns out other games, who don't have a publisher and don't have the funds to advertise.

Yes and all that creativity would be for nought if EA didn't front the production budget so the game could actually get made. So again, you have a company investing in the production of video games, and you have a store selling video games.

Rachmaninov:Perhaps I'll use the analogy of books instead, since video games also involves writing a story. Go back to 1995, take the Harry Potter I.P. away from J.K. Rowling.

Sure, she probably would've written other books, but Harry Potter was her magnus opus, her great work. Taking that away from her would've meant that the successful career she had now, likely never would have happened. She couldn't have exactly gone and written "Parry Hotter and the Logician's Rock" without the new owner of her IP taking her to court.

Your misunderstanding comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of art. Truly great ideas aren't just the product of thinking really hard, despite what you seem to think.

That's an amusing analogy because Rowland was reportedly happy to be finally rid of Harry Potter so she could write something new.

Except that the game comes to you deliberately unfinished, so they've got more things to sell you. Seriously, what is it you're not getting?

Developers: "Hey, we've got a great game with Dead Space 3. We've had some really good ideas how to further the story."EA: "Good, now lock some pieces so we can sell them as Day One DLC, shoe-horn in a resource system so we can offer microtransactions and cut out this extra stuff in Chapter X, we'll use that idea for some $25 DLC."

Read that. Read it and try to pretend it's not true.

I don't know if it's true or not because:A - I'm not OmniscientB - I don't work at either EA or on the Dead Space 3 crew

Hell what about Team Fortress 2.They sold that game unfinished too right. I mean, the Pyro Update, the Heavy Update, all those new weaposn they added they were going to put them in the game but didn't have time so they just sold the game, as is, and doled out the cut-products slowly so you would keep playing and keep spending money on steam. Those bastards!

See, I just made that up. But it's fact right? Don't pretend like it's not fact. My theories borne of a hatred of [insert-company-X] are entirely infallible despite no evidence whatsoever beyond my own uninformed opinion.

Akalabeth:Hey look, it's someone who's trying to refute my discussion without actually providing specifics, examples or anything of value. And if I'm repeating the same things, it's because the people on the other side of the discussion "don't get it".

But beyond that, thanks for your meaningless post that contributed nothing. Have a nice day.

You know, its an attitude like that which is going to keep you from having many friends mister.

Rachmaninov pointed out all your inconsistencies and flaws in logic, and you completely ignored them. He pointed out those that you ignored, and you completely ignored them to.

You've consistently lacked evidence to support many of your claims, yet cry "Havoc!" should anyone else not source materials even when they're within this very thread.

For example, you claim to know a great deal about setting "realistic expectations" because you make three minute 2D cartoons in school, so therefore game developers should be able to make 8-10 hour 3D single player campaigns without any difficulty because those two things are exactly alike.

The sheer audacity of your arguments are mind-boggling. Please, settle down a little bit, read what Rachmaninov is saying, and respond to his specific argument. Throwing a tantrum like a 6 year old because "those other kids are being mean" is not a compelling way to make anyone side with you. Instead of re-evaluating your own position, you'd rather sum it up with "they just don't get it" and continue to vomit out insane amounts of nonsense.

But beyond that, thank you for whole pages of meaningless posts that contributed nothing.

For example, you claim to know a great deal about setting "realistic expectations" because you make three minute 2D cartoons in school, so therefore game developers should be able to make 8-10 hour 3D single player campaigns without any difficulty because those two things are exactly alike.

I'm sorry, but what do you do? Do you work professionally? McDonalds? Accountant? Student? Or what?

I on the other hand, work EVERY DAY in an artistic trade and have done so for years. It's a creative, deadline-orientated trade just like game design. Less testing and QA yes, but still there are unforseen problems or mistakes that delay the production.

The point, you don't work on an artistic trade. Do you?Neither does Rachiman or whatever his alias is.

And yet you have the audacity to claim that you have a better understanding than I do? Get lost.

Hell have you even modded a game? Created new models, new levels, new missions? I have. So my knowledge of "game design" is probably more advanced than yours as well. And on top of that, I've created all the BG art, character animations and cutscenes for a flash game when I was doing some paid-freelance.

Just because you doodle in your sketchbook doesn't make you an artist.Plinking around on an instrument a few hours, or writing a song, doesn't make you an artist.Writing a short story now and again, doesn't make you an artist.

What makes you an artist is working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

And until any of you are in that position none of you know a damned thing about the creative entertainment industry.

You know, its an attitude like that which is going to keep you from having many friends mister.

I'm not trying to make friends. Least of all not with people who feel entitled to disregard a person's entire discussion without actually contributing anything themselves. You have a point to make? Make it. And back it up. Otherwise keep lurking.

I'm sorry, but what do you do? Do you work professionally? McDonalds? Accountant? Student? Or what?

I on the other hand, work EVERY DAY in an artistic trade and have done so for years. It's a creative, deadline-orientated trade just like game design. Less testing and QA yes, but still there are unforseen problems or mistakes that delay the production.

The point, you don't work on an artistic trade. Do you?Neither does Rachiman or whatever his alias is.

And yet you have the audacity to claim that you have a better understanding than I do? Get lost.

Hell have you even modded a game? Created new models, new levels, new missions? I have. So my knowledge of "game design" is probably more advanced than yours as well.

Just because you doodle in your sketchbook doesn't make you an artist.Plinking around on an instrument a few hours, or writing a song, doesn't make you an artist.Writing a short story now and again, doesn't make you an artist.

What makes you an artist is working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

And until any of you are in that position none of you know a damned thing about the creative entertainment industry.

Geez Ms. Sensitive!

Now, re-read your post and tell me where you went wrong. Very good! The areas where you made claims when you had no idea what the reality was! You're learning! Whose a good boy? That's right! You are!

I happen to be in computer programming. Which means that I have a lot of insight in the many ways that one thing can go completely wrong. The amount of hours, not only making changes, but documenting the changes so that (further along in development) people will be able to reference the things that I've done. It's a huge process that is so much more technically demanding than spending 40 hours a week doodling your cartoons.

Now, (because I'm honest unlike some people) I haven't worked in game development. Oh, I've modded and the like, but that counts for squat compared to actual game development.

Still, working in an "artistic" occupation doesn't mean that you have the first clue about any of the various industry that very broad title encompasses. You, sir, seem very much like Uwe Boll to me. A man who, very much in the "artistic industry" but has absolutely no idea what he's doing within the same. Someone who spews out a bunch of garbage consistently, but has the gall to critique other peoples work.

Also, we're going back to "length = quality" argument you were favoring before. Dead Space 3 is better than Orange box because it is longer. You're an artist more than other people because you spend more time doing it.

So unless you have made something of note. Of quality. Something that isn't complete garbage that nobody has ever heard of, you have no more room to stand than anyone who scribbles in a note pad or writes a short story. You are a very sad and angry person, and I really truly recommend that you seek some sort of therapeutic help as soon as possible.

If your only comment was on your personal experience is one thing, but when you imply that TF2 fits into the "F2P" model and always has you're misrepresenting the facts deliberately or through an inability to communicate

It's not a semantics argument, it's about you basing your opinion of a company based on personal experience rather than looking at the situation objectively with you know a reasoned, mature perspective.

And if you're afraid of being forced to change your mind by arguing, then don't post your opinion.

You're living in a fantasy world man.

I don't even like Cliffy B, guy's a dumbass.

Considering that you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the things I've mention I very much doubt that to be the case

Another person who's losing his grasp on the argument and starts clutches at straws.

I'm sorry but the consideration of time was obviously not a part of your original post, you only introduce it now out of an attempt to weasel out of the obvious

Now you've got to know you're deliberately misrepresenting the truth here. Are you so keen to defend EA that you're going to resort to bare-faced lying?

Cliff B from previous articles seems like a jerk, I disliked every article that came up on the escapist about him, but I'll concede him some props this time.

As much as it made me sick to do it, I went over a few of the pages with your quotes and pulled out personal attacks. Couldn't go through all of them as the sheer amount of nonsense was making me ill. I think I've got enough to at least prove that you're hardly an innocent.

And how hypocritical of you, to threaten me for using the word "rant" which you take exception to, only to go on to insult me bare-faced.

I'm not going to rise to this pissing contest you're so desperate to start. Perhaps you are an artist after all, but your lack of comprehension of the subject is still apparent. If you think inspiration is something that just comes with trying hard, you're incorrect. Maybe if you had more than 4 months experience drawing shorts, which in no way compares to writing proper full length stories and single projects that would take sevenfold the sum of your experience to make, you'd understand.

It's clear by your assertion that you've worked in an "artistic trade" and yet only have 4 months experience making any actual art, that you're not actually making art yourself anymore. Being an artist's accountant doesn't mean you know anything about art.

You don't know my credentials, and I'm not buying in to your pissing contest.

But if a game that EA publishes is great, it's not because of EA, they're just the publisher. They didn't develop those games right. But if there's any problem with a game, it must be EA's fault. The ending sucks! It's EA's fault because of you know, deadlines and stuff, yeah that's a good rational right? NOT.

If the ending sucks, maybe Bioware should not have waited until the end to work on it.

Not true, and the funny thing is, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know it.

EA published a great game with Mirror's Edge, and I thanked them in front of you earlier in this thread.

Some things EA does are good, like risking publishing games I love, like Mirror's Edge.

And I said:

Publishers do get a say in the creative side. That's good cause to assume everything "out of character" for the game could well be publisher interference

Hahaha. Right.So . . a storefront that REQUIRES you use it in order to play the games it sells is going to get rid of deliberately divisive tactics? Give me a break man.

Well I'm sorry you're not feeling optimistic, but I'm afraid I have evidence.

Both the Xbox and the PS3 are insular, only work with proprietary controllers, hard-drives and accessories, almost exclusively manufactured by the respective company. If you want an Xbox made by someone other than Microsoft, tough luck.

The Steam Box, on the other hand, is basically a miniature PC. It comes with Linux, and you can install windows if you want. But the Steam Box can be manufactured by anybody. You could even make one yourself, if you like. In fact, Steam have already funded (that word you like so much) the development of the first Steam Box, and it's not even made by them.

Now, have you actually got an argument, or just more baseless negativity?

Wrong.Kickstarter and word of mouth gave FTL a spotlight. Not Steam Greenlight.

You're correct here. It wasn't Steam Greenlight. It was just Steam. But you're lying to yourself if you think getting on the front page of the most popular DD service isn't good advertising, and didn't easily triple the games sales.

And yes that's besides the point but again, I don't credit a store for selling things. A store selling stuff is just people looking to make money from other people's work. I credit people for creating things.

Creating things like the best DD service around, you mean? Well, then you best be giving credit to the Valve people.

Yes except in one case EA is risking their capital to develop a product. In the other case Valve is riding on the coat tail's of someone else's hard work.

Because letting millions of people see that the hard work actually exists is totally not worthwhile, right?

If I wanted to sell my games, I would be over-the-moon for Steam to do it. Not because I like Valve, but rather because their cut is very reasonable for the massive exposure and free advertisement you get. People flock to YouTube to share their creations there, and YouTube only offer you about $1 each 1000 views... that is a much, much greater cut, for basically the same service.

And while doing so by the way Valve has shown a preference for the Source engine, hosting games which are . . alleged terrible while at the same time other great indie games weren't allowed on Steam.

Of the games I've seen Greenlit, none were in the Source engine. They have hosted some real gems, too, like this.

Some games are Greenlit, but haven't got to the front page. But you rag on me for "conspiracy theorist thinking" later in your comment, so I expect you won't be adding a meaning to why they haven't arrived yet, will you?

Rachmaninov:Valve were the beginning of the Call of Duty era, with Counter Strike. And before you repeat what you've already said; Yes, I know Counter Strike wasn't made by them. Yes, I know it was a mod. Yes, I know they only bought the idea. But my point is, Valve have been in the MP-only arena for a long, long time and nothing has changed. And that's not even including Team Fortress, which invented class-based shooters.

I didn't give Valve credit for Counter-Strike, I won't reiterate what I said, since I decided to leave the quote above for you to re-read.

Valve gave Counter-Strike a push, by hiring the team, giving them support. It'd be nothing but conjecture to guess at whether or not CS would have been as successful if not for the support of Valve,

Oh and speaking of "riding on the coat tails of someone else's hard work": Counter-Strike is a mod for Half Life. Half Life and the modding tools used to create Counter-Strike were made by Valve.

Akalabeth:Besides whether Valve has always done MP or not doesn't matter, what matters now is that they're not making much for single player games, nor are they making new IP.

And like I said already, they've never made much for single player games. You are entirely imagining this "Valve single-player dry-spell" nonsense. Valve made Half Life and didn't make Half Life 2 until they had the Source engine, and won't make Half Life 3 until they've made another engine leap. Of their games, a small portion of them are single-player. You seem to imagine them making a steady stream of SP games until recently, and that simply isn't true.

Part of that credit is due to the people making games. But all their creativity would be for naught if someone didn't give them a place where those games could be viewed just as easily as AAA games. People like EA have helped create a system where independent developers cannot complete. They spend massive amounts of money on their games, giving them loud advertising and building hype (all good things, besides perhaps the bloated spending) which completely drowns out other games, who don't have a publisher and don't have the funds to advertise.

Yes and all that creativity would be for nought if EA didn't front the production budget so the game could actually get made. So again, you have a company investing in the production of video games, and you have a store selling video games.

We agree, which is something you seem to have missed, I highlighted for effect.

Despite your imaginings, I've never said that everything EA does is bad. Providing capital to developers is a good thing. Doesn't excuse the other evil shit, though.

Rachmaninov:Perhaps I'll use the analogy of books instead, since video games also involves writing a story. Go back to 1995, take the Harry Potter I.P. away from J.K. Rowling.

Sure, she probably would've written other books, but Harry Potter was her magnus opus, her great work. Taking that away from her would've meant that the successful career she had now, likely never would have happened. She couldn't have exactly gone and written "Parry Hotter and the Logician's Rock" without the new owner of her IP taking her to court.

Your misunderstanding comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of art. Truly great ideas aren't just the product of thinking really hard, despite what you seem to think.

That's an amusing analogy because Rowland was reportedly happy to be finally rid of Harry Potter so she could write something new.

Thanks for that nugget of irrelevant information. It doesn't matter if she eventually got sick of writing Harry Potter, what matters is that Harry Potter was her great work, her magnus opus. The only reason she was in a press release to tell you she was finally happy to be rid of Harry Potter was because she got famous by writing Harry Potter.

Akalabeth:*snip*Now you've got to know you're deliberately misrepresenting the truth here. Are you so keen to defend EA that you're going to resort to bare-faced lying?*snip*

As much as it made me sick to do it, I went over a few of the pages with your quotes and pulled out personal attacks. Couldn't go through all of them as the sheer amount of nonsense was making me ill. I think I've got enough to at least prove that you're hardly an innocent.

That one was me, but that's the only one on the list by me. And I stand by it, because:

Akalabeth:Bully. Haha.I attack the content of the post, not the person. There's a difference.